A concern about rogue's role in dungeons. Overall need for all classes to have desirability.

Noaani

nidriks wrote: »

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

He answered this question during the follow up AMA that this got brought up a. I don't think Asmogold actually talked to him about it:

All classes will have unique utility skills. He also stated the Rangers will have the ability to track. We know that tanks can summon physical walls (more of PvP thing than PvE). We will have to wait to know the other ones but the intent is balance groups of 8s so that the group has atleast one of each.

Hmm, well, if the intent is balanced groups of the 8 primaries then I think I've found something I really don't like.

This is something I potentially agree with.

I'm planning on looking at how it works during alpha/beta, and if it seems like it could be restricting, my suggestion will be to make it so that players get the out of combat ability of both of their classes - meaning that a group would want to have someone in the group with each of the 8 primary classes somewhere in the mix.

This would open up group composition a whole lot.

nidriks

delghinn wrote: »

find it interesting so many in the thread see the issue with one class being required for some feature of group content however readily accept that tanks and clerics are required with no viable substitutions

You do?

Well, the fact with clerics and tanks is that thewre are usually alternatives to a class. Warriors, paladins, shadow knights, druids, shaman. You may also have noticed that I have said, either in this thread or elsewhere, that I believe Ashes should have alternatives to tank and cleric because those two seem to be the only main choice as tank or healer prior to 25.

Anyway, tank and healer are roles. We're clearly talking about extra abilities.

Anything else interesting to add?

Aardvark

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

nidriks

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

I want alternatives. Whilst I am all for tough challenges I do realise that Ashes is just a game and having content be prohibitive can put people off. Whilst I want content that is a harkener to the MMOs of 15 years ago, I want Ashes to be successful.

I do want content that only rogues can handle, but I see no reason why a ranger or a fighter shouldn't have some skill to be able to have a crack at it.

The problem I see is I don't want special abilities that open new paths for dungeons to be a few clases only. I also don't want eight man groups to be forced to include one of each archetype. That will get dull fast.

Ideally I guess we could see a variety of paths be available throughout a dungeon but that there would be requirements to passing certain way. This is commonplace in games like Divinity: Original Sin with needing rogues/theives to pass a certain way. Perhaps if a group doesn't have a rogue then there could be a different route that might require a summoner pet to access.

There should be incentives to having a rogue and being able to access a certain boss, but it should prohibit groups without a rogue from getting vakue from a dungeon.

So, yes, include ideas such as you mentioned from DDO, but let's not restrict groups from getting anywhere. Let them get somewhere another way.

It's just thoughts that will likely change as we see more information from the game.

bloodprophet

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

Yes please!

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

Yes please!

that would hard lock people out of content until they can assemble a narrow focused specific group. perhaps to the extreme of requiring one of every class.

highly unlikely to be popular. would be better to have bonus things for having each of every class however in noway required to do the content.

bloodprophet

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

Sendbackup

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

I feel that you maybe over analysing this. We need to remember that in raids diversity is key.!

1 - You have to have a tank (depending on the size of raid, prob 2 or 3 tanks)

2 - You need healers (for a 40 man raid would expect somewhere around 4-5 healers)

3 - you always need a diversity of dps that are mixed ranged and melee.

In saying that, alot of mmo's ive played the melee are usually minimal to mitigate close quarters damage and potential healer mana sapping so they can focus on the tanks.

We have already seen that mages are going to be sort after in raids for their mana gifting of healers. I guess particularly in the early dungeons etc until mana pots etc are in good supply.

So I guess my point is there may only ever be 1 rogue in a raid because of just that one ability and then stacked with more than one of other classes. So, theoretically if rogues may lack sustained dps lets say as opposed to other classes, alot of rogues might be left out of raids altogether for the sack of only needing one for opening up additional rooms and passages! You just never know. What we need is to see the full work up of class and subclass abilities/buffs etc

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

bloodprophet

delghinn wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

Clearly you hate the trinity. What system would you suggest they use?

Ulf

I think you guys focus way too much on dungeon gameplay. Were you look for the most efficient way to clear said dungeons.

Maybe AoC is taking a different path, that will not focus on too much dungeons and more on open world farming / pvp. This way is different, because you have to learn the world, learn the best spots to farm, change it up a little bit when you get better gear, etc etc.
Sometimes I think people focus on WoW too much, and that is understandable. WoW is an old game, that lots of people play to this day, and people have had time to think about it and figure out how can they can make WoW better, and Blizzard has been very deaf when it comes to listening to their playerbase.

Dungeons provide an easy way to gather a bunch of players to focus on one objective, but at the same time, limit the posibilities regarding gameplay, you feel forced to play group dungeons to progress in the game.

Final Fantasy 14 is another game that forces you, somehow, to dungeon play with limited role options that are ideal and with that, reduced variety.

I like open world farming, and with the corruption system ( old Lineage 2 Karma ), it makes the game very interesting for the different classes. Sometimes you will make a buddy healer, other times you will meet a tank and you are a dps and will have to make do with what you have, and that will be okay ( for the first... say 30 levels ). If you want to move to a better farming spot... find a healer, or a buffer, or another tank kinda class to divide the damage, etc etc.

That also comes with the high group limit (8). You wanna farm okay ? Stick with your bunch of friends and progress the game. Wanna go High Brain strat and farm lvl 80 dragons with AoE ? Recruit a bunch of healers / supports / dps and try different options. That's why classes are important, but game and world design are too. If they manage a seamless progression in the world, with different areas for different playstyles, they hit the spot.

Very interesting topic

Have Great Day !

Ulf

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

delghinn wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

Clearly you hate the trinity. What system would you suggest they use?

that's a longer discussion and highly unlikely to happen with this title however to mitigate some of the more onerous shortcomings with the trinity mechanic one needs more base classes be able to spec/gear to perform additional trinity roles. That's not just some dps classes being able to gear/spec to do either the tank/healer roles but also tank and cleric base classes able to be completely viable dps when spec'd/geared for it.

perhaps at least add bard/cleric and fighter/tank to viable healer and tank trinity roles

in before "zomg if fighter/tank can main tank no one will play tank." yeah that's the problem with the tank archetype and more broadly an indicator of issues with the 64 "classes" thing entirely.

Tyrantor

Phrequency wrote: »

I'm more worried about a rogues role in castle sieges

This is true - Rogues have always been sort of left behind in large scale battles because their usefulness to attack soft targets is more limited when large masses of people are present, it's hard to find the "stragglers" so to speak. However from what I've read it appears rogues will have the ability to scale walls and this could open opportunities for them to attack from inside the city while people feel "safe" for example. Even with that however the question would then become a balance of guard AI aggro and the rogue's ability to escape after engaging someone because of the effort and time to get into a city and wait out a soft/vulnerable target if that just results in insta kill/no escape from the AI guards afterwards it limits the useful effectiveness in terms of PVP outside of scouting ability.

bloodprophet

Homogenization is the bane of all. Most of us like the way it is set up. Choices should matter. Being able to switch roles on the fly like WOW or Rift marginalizes those that made the hard choice or just happen to like that play style.
We all like different things and that is good. But making everything the same makes it boring.

Yuyukoyay

They don't really need to do it for Tanks or Clerics though. They should have the crappiest unique abilities because they are always going to be wanted.

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

Homogenization is the bane of all. Most of us like the way it is set up. Choices should matter. Being able to switch roles on the fly like WOW or Rift marginalizes those that made the hard choice or just happen to like that play style.
We all like different things and that is good. But making everything the same makes it boring.

having more than two classes be able to provide for 2/3rds the trinity roles is not making every class be able to do everything

Nawti_Carrot

I think we should be more concerned about wether or not, some of the unique utility skills will be totally useless compared to some others, rather than wondering if some classes will be more prevalent in group/raid composition.
Because at the end of the day, there will always be elitist players or a tendancy to some "meta" game plan that a lot of people are going to follow. Might aswell focus on making sure the differents unique skills are all going to have an actual impact on the long run.
Remember diversity and liberty of choosing is what makes a game great, and because of that, you can't expect it to be the same experience for every class you play, it'd be boring ! The same way you can't ask a blacksmith to be able to bake you a baguette, that'd make no sense ! (Oui oui I am indeed french )

I hope I get my point across !

Grails

Phrequency wrote: »

I'm more worried about a rogues role in castle sieges

Nah, a rogue will be sweet! I've heard you can like assassinate captains and vendors in the city to increase defenders/attackers respawn time

Kneczhevo

Rogues and rangers get parquar (sp). That's an ability no other classes have. That means they can reach places no other class has. Toss in lock picking and possibly poisons. I don't see an issue with the OP.

SamuraiWindu

delghinn wrote: »

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

People seem to be confused about what the “trinity” system is. The AoC wiki, which is made and run by fans, contributes to this confusion. When the developers talk about a trinity system, it is usually in reference to balancing PvP through the interactions between damage types and armor types. Fighters, Tanks, Rangers, and Rogues all predominantly deal physical damage, while Mages predominantly deal magical damage. Clerics deal a mixture of physical damage and magical damage. Bards and Summoners are yet to be revealed. Furthermore, Fighters and Tanks are encouraged to wear heavy armor, which is strong against physical damage and weak against magical damage. Rangers and Rogues are encouraged to wear light armor, which is weak against both physical damage and magical damage, but passive abilities for wearing light armor increase damage dealt. Mages are encouraged to wear cloth armor, which is weak against physical damage and strong against magical damage. Clerics are encouraged to wear medium armor, which is mediocre against both physical damage and magical damage. Again, Bards and Summoners are yet to be revealed. This creates a dynamic where Fighters and Tanks counter Rangers and Rogues, who in turn counter Mages, who in turn counter Fighters and Tanks, hence a trinity. Clerics are neutral.

What the original post is concerned with are the roles of archetypes, which people have been classifying as Tank, Damage, and Healer. Of among the eight archetypes, there will be one Tank and one Healer, but six Damage archetypes. The developers intend that players include each of the eight archetypes in their parties; archetypes which are highly customizable by the way. So to maintain variance between archetypes, and in particular the Damage archetypes, the developers want to give those archetypes interesting and distinctive abilities that a party would not want to go without. I would also like to point out that the classifications of Tank, Damage, and Healer are far from complete or accurate. Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition identifies these three rolls (under different names) but also includes Controller as a distinctive roll; in that game fighters are the iconic Tanks, rogues are the iconic Damage dealers, clerics are the iconic Healers, and wizards are the iconic Controllers. In AoC, the role of Controller (generally defined as someone who utilizes crowd control effects) is spread among the other roles. That means that the developers have to come up with interesting things that each archetype can do. An example of this is allowing Rogues to discover hidden doors, traps, and additional treasures. Every archetype will do something useful for a party, meaning that there are not three roles, but eight.